[Updated at 9:30 p.m. ET] The U.S. military is ending its policy of excluding women from combat and will open combat jobs and direct combat units to female troops, multiple officials told CNN on Wednesday.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will make the announcement Thursday and notify Congress of the planned change in policy, the officials said.

"We will eliminate the policy of 'no women in units that are tasked with direct combat,'" a senior defense official said.

The officials cautioned, however, that "not every position will open all at once on Thursday." Once the policy is changed, the Department of Defense will enter what is being called an "assessment phase," in which each branch of service will examine all its jobs and units not currently integrated and then produce a timetable for integrating them.

The Army and Marine Corps, especially, will be examining physical standards and gender-neutral accommodations within combat units. Every 90 days, the service chiefs will have to report on their progress.

The move will be one of the last significant policy decisions made by Panetta, who is expected to leave in mid-February. It is not clear where former Sen. Chuck Hagel, the nominated replacement, stands, but officials say he has been apprised of Panetta's coming announcement.

"It will take a while to work out the mechanics in some cases. We expect some jobs to open quickly, by the end of this year. Others, like special operations forces and infantry, may take longer," a senior defense official explained. Panetta is setting the goal of January 2016 for all assessments to be complete and women to be integrated as much as possible.

The Pentagon has left itself some wiggle room, however, which may ultimately lead to some jobs being designated as closed to women. A senior defense official said if, after the assessment, a branch finds that "a specific job or unit should not be open, they can go back to the secretary and ask for an exemption to the policy, to designate the job or unit as closed."

The official said the goal remains to open as many jobs as possible. "We should open all specialties to the maximum extent possible to women. We know they can do it."

Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican who spent six years as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War, said he supports lifting the ban on women serving in combat, pointing out women are already serving in harm's way. But he said the move should not fundamentally change the military.

"As this new rule is implemented, it is critical that we maintain the same high standards that have made the American military the most feared and admired fighting force in the world - particularly the rigorous physical standards for our elite special forces units," McCain said in a statement.

Thousands of women in the military have already found themselves in combat situations, said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington. Recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan have lacked a real front line, and women serving there have come under fire and had to fight back alongside male counterparts, she said.

Murray, who leads the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and is a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, called Panetta's decision a "historic step for equality" that recognizes the role women play in the military.

The Pentagon must notify Congress of each job or unit as it is sent up to the secretary to be opened to women. Then the Defense Department must wait 30 days while Congress is in session before implementing the change.

It is a marked difference from the way the military ended the exclusion of gays serving openly, or the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. In that case, there were no stipulations attached to openly gay service members. There was no staggered approach that integrated openly gay troops into units. It was instead done all at once, across the board.

A senior defense official explained the Pentagon's reasoning behind the different approach: "You're talking about personal choice of behavior versus physical capability. And they were already in the units. If you take a unit that's never had women before, that's quite a culture change."

Another senior defense official said the goal is "to provide a level, gender-neutral playing field."

The American Civil Liberties Union recently filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Defense, charging that combat exclusion is unfair and outdated, harms America's safety and prevents women from receiving training and recognition for their work. The plaintiffs, who include women awarded Purple Hearts, say the exclusion places them at a disadvantage for promotion.

"But we welcome this statement with cautious optimism, as we hope that it will be implemented fairly and quickly so that servicewomen can receive the same recognition for their service as their male counterparts," Ariela Migdal, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project, said in the statement.

Earlier this month, the Army opened the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment to women, and it has begun recruiting female pilots and crew chiefs. The Navy has put its first female officers on submarines in the past year, and certain female ground troops have been attached to combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 800 women were wounded in those wars, and at least 130 have died.

soundoff(3,551 Responses)

Retired AF

I recently retired from the military, and I can tell you that the biggest issue with females in deployment zones is ADULTERY and getting PREGNANT and requiring immediate departure for the states with no replacement. This is not going to make this issue any better. This is a big mistake based on these two factors alone.

"Keep it in your pants and it won't be a problem" Or don't men have enough discpline for that? And all the women in the military that I know are on a sub-cue, so I don't see how pregnancy matters a bit.

You are undoubtedly an uninformed female? Probably you need to forget the womens lib deal on this, war is not a place where woman should be, God certainly knew this. Common sense is not common

January 23, 2013 at 5:47 pm |

Phunnie boy

As long as I have been trolling George Patton and his moderate ideas as a Tea Partier, even I get sick to my stomach at the idea of these sick minded killer broads. They must be morally depraved if they want to kill babies!!!!!!!!!

Congress and the White House are being pressured by feminist groups who complain that there are no Medal of Honor recipients who are female. it won't be long before the first female MOH winner emerges.

People discuss that women and men can be equal in the military... If that is the case than why are there two different Physical Fitness standards. A man can run beside his wife for the Physical Fitness test, and she can run the Maximum standard for women, and the man would fail. Somebody should either make the standards the same, if they are facing the same danger, or notify the enemy that they need to run slower if chasing a female....

Its a sad day when this country's men lets their women do the fighting for them. The pussification of the American Armed Forces by the liberal left is now complete. I dont recommend military service to anyone anymore and I work around the military everyday, and they wont ever be getting my son. By the way, between myself, my father, and my sister (Air Force Nurse) we have 78 years of service between the Army, Navy, and AIr Force.

The Pentagon will open some first line combat units to women yes. But be rest assured the big dawgs like the Navy Seals, Marine Recon, etc. will still be off limits. That's that wiggle room the Pentagon speaks of.

This is going to be a logistical nightmare. Women have different needs then men do. These specific needs can not be provided for on the front lines. Men and women are built different, yes there are some women that are stronger than you average man. Your average grunt is not the same as your average man though. Your average grunt takes everything he will need for days, weeks, or even months on his back and walks. There pack usually weighs about 60-70lbs on top of their flack, kevlar, weapon, ammo, and water. All in all your average grunt will have an extra 100lbs that he has to move with and keep up with the unit. Are there men that have the same issues, yes, but they get weeded out. The anatomy difference between men and women make this even more difficult for a woman to accomplish. Female Marine Officers already volunteered to go to the Infantry Officers Course and withdrew themselves from the course because it was too difficult for them. There may be women that can hack it, but the majority of women in the service will not be able to and they will be the ones that will put the negative stigma on those that can. I do agree with those that have posted earlier, if women can now be in direct combat they should have to register for the Selective Service.

Yeah, but you are far likelier to get "raped" in a combat zone where the enemy is there to capture or kill you, and of course will rape you if they capture you versus walking to your car. I mean if you don't have a problem with it. I don't. I guess a man could get raped too but ...somehow i think it's going to happen alot more to a female POW than a guy.

To all of you people who think that women can't hang in combat, guess what, we already are in combat. I was in the Marine Corps from 00-04, and was deployed in 03 when we first crossed over from Kuwait to Iraq. The women in my Platoon went through the same experiences as the males, we are not separated we do all the same ish! Granted we were in support positions (7th ESB Engineers I was an electrician, we had combat engineers and water purification specialist too) but we were out there digging fighting holes, on watch in the dirt, protecting our positions just like the duded. The reason is because when you're in a combat situation you have to do what you have to do to accomplish the mission. No one is going to sit there and feel sorry for you when you have your period, you are expected to do your job no matter what, at least that's how it is in the Marine Corps. Speaking of periods When I was in Iraq I couldn't take a shower for a month and yes I got my period, but you use baby wipes and make due with what you have even if its getting a cup full of water, ADAPT AND OVERCOME that's what the MArine Corps is all about! I was in a support position but we were in the ish man! But we did have the Grunts and LAV in front of us so we were always protected. I never discharged my rifle, but If it came down to it I would of had to.

The question we should be asking is, what combat jobs are women going to be allowed to enter into? I had female friends in Artillery in support roles (electricians). Will they be allowed in tanks, LAVS, infintry positions (mortarmen, etc.)? It is true the men have a totally different culture in their batallions, so that will have to be changed. Men in the military like being men, they can cuss, talk about all the nasty perverted stuff they want to. If women were to come in the picture then these units whole cultures would have to change. This is going to take a long time before women will be accepted into combat units by their male counterparts in my opinion. Also, physically I'm not sure how many women will be able to keep up with the grunts physical training, they would have to be able to keep up of course, they do Hard Corps stuff, no one is there to babysit a weak female. The grunts are lean, green, mean killing machines and I know I'm not strong enough to keep up with them (and I was pretty damn Hard Corps myself ha ha) That's the only concern of mine, will most women be able to keep up physically? I know mentally we can do it because we're already out there in the dirt in support positions, driving trucks, etc. I could possibly see women being in Tanks, LAVs, Arty maybe, but again there would have to be a whole culture change within these Combat units (Don't know about ground pounding Grunts though).

Also, i'm reading comments on here from people who have never been in the Military acting like they know something about the military. If you have never been in then shut the uck up! You have no room to talk, you have not sacrificed what we have and put your body through the rigorous training that we have so you have no room to talk, especially negative about females in the Military!

Yes Common Sense I am a Feminist, but did you read my earlier post I said I don't know if women can do what grunts do physically, but maybe they can be in tanks or Arty, something like that. I'm not one sided on this issue because I know the complexity of the change for the Military culturally and physically

January 23, 2013 at 6:44 pm |

ArmyVet

Well said. I am an Army male veteran of 22 years and have utmost respect for our female counterparts. They in every respect can accomplish the mission. It depends upon the "individual". Some females might not be comfortable in a combat role just as MANY male counterparts are not. It iss not a matter of testosterone, but a matter of sacrifice and a willingnerss to serve.

As the Son of a Combat Veteran of Both WWII & The Korean War serving for 12 years & The youngest Brother of a 10 years Vietnam Marine Gunnery Sergeant, both served & paid my dues So I can contribute what ever I want on this Subject, The only reason I did not Join the Corps was several College recruits felt I could contribute to their Football Program & both my Father & Brother supported my decision, Had they were given that opportunity, Just because a person never served, doesn't mean they cannot voice an Opinion Most contribute by working & paying Taxes which is used to Fund the Military

Nobody "pays your dues for you". My Dad flew B-52's in Vietnam, and my Grandpa was on subs in the Pacific, that doesn't mean I knew what it was like to serve by listening to their stories. Until you've humped 20 miles with 100 lbs of gear on your back, with your own diarrhea running down into your boots the entire way, you haven't "paid your dues". You have a right to an opinion, you have a right to voice it, and I have a right to tell Stephen Hawking about my theories on space and time. I'm just as qualified to do that, as you are to opine on the cultural and physical issues of women in combat.

If they have them fight just three days a month even the most bloodthirsty jihadists wouldn't stand a chance. All joking aside, I have no problems with this as long as they pass the training the same as any soldier, and I think it's high time they get their shot to show what they can do. Kick some butt, ladies! My only concern is the rape issue, as others have brought up, as some of our current foes treat women as being lower than livestock.

Who cares. As long as they can pass all the same physical tests set for men then bring 'em on. I mean, really, wouldn't you rather have some burley woman who ran circles around all the guys at bootcamp fighting next to you than some puny man-runt who barely passed the tests?

Many commentators here seem to believe that men are somehow the gold standard that we all must measure ourselves by. I think not. Throughout history women have fought and died in wars and other insurrections all over the world. To actually be paid and earn the benefits that come with that seems fair, finally. We certainly can't screw things up any worse than the men have.

There's better ways to limit deaths than opposing gender equality. If the military really cared about limiting casualties don't you think they would have bought body armor for our front line troops

January 23, 2013 at 5:36 pm |

edc3

Limiting deaths? What a joke. If men truly want to limit deaths then stop killing people. You moron.

January 23, 2013 at 5:49 pm |

Harrison_RW

Patty Cakes, do some reading. She never actively participated in combat.

"She was also responsible for outlining military strategies, directing troops and proposing diplomatic solutions to the English (all of which they rejected). Despite her distance from the front lines, Joan was wounded at least twice, taking an arrow to the shoulder during her famed Orléans campaign and a crossbow bolt to the thigh during her failed bid to liberate Paris."

She was very heroic and did great things, but we are talking about the frontline here.What Joan of Arc did women are doing already which is great. Frontline is a different ballgame.....

and unlike most people i wll site my source: http://www.history.com/news/7-things-you-didnt-know-about-joan-of-arc

January 24, 2013 at 4:51 pm |

Common Sense

Yeah, my bad, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great and Napoleon were all chicks....

As a former Marine and a person who works with Marines I have had the privilege of working with and observing females who are amazing and would have little if any problem with the mental and physical requirements of a combat environment. The females would have to endure the same tough training and be held up to the exact same standards as the males. If not they would either be moved into a more suitable MOS or in some cases discharged. Females would not just be given a gun and told to shoot... They will be just as able to carry on as the males, due to extensive training and education. They will not be set up to fail either themselves, their fellow Marines or their county.

Sure the Obama Administration is going to go along with the concept of discharing women that don't make the cut. Keep dreaming and face the fact that all will be Marines because it is now politically correct.

I served "Shohna ba Shohna" with females in Afghanistan and they performed just as well as my male Soldiers. One was even awarded an Army Commendation Medal with "V" device. That means, for "Valor."

January 23, 2013 at 5:35 pm |

spockmckoy

the next thing in the corps: Mrs. Senator X, " How come the women aren't graduating?" Sarge: "cause they can't do the same physical tests a man can, they're built differently." Mrs. Senator X "So, make the test easier then, we don't care if they can do the job, we just need them in the corps for fairness"........

That is exactly what will happen edc3. They won't meet the physical same standards as men. The politicians will put pressure on senior military leaders to get the numbers up. The standards will lowered or be falsified. Then the combat units will continue to be down graded based on political correctness.

January 23, 2013 at 5:43 pm |

alexusf

Could you please enthrall us with how his statement is inaccurate? Women are not now, nor will they be required to pass the exact same physical tests as men.

January 23, 2013 at 7:30 pm |

Lexxs

Anyone with even half a brain can see that your point is completely true.

i believe that woman are more than capable of mentally adapting to combat roles, i dont feel that it would be fair to the rest of the unit relying on brains and bronze. It might be just me but i want the person watching my back to be able to bench 250 easily and know how to fight in combat. Not to mention you would have every terrorist back army trying to capture those woman

Women are approaching this from an invalid point of view. They are going on the premise that men and women are equal, they are not equal. Men and Women have equalties, but they are not equal. Is there a difference between a man and woman driving a car, no. Flying an airplane, no. But the foot slogging grueling nature of extended field combat woment can not do the same as men. The law preventing females from combat is for all women, not the one ot ten who could possibly pass Ranger, or Spec Ops training, opening this up to women, repealing this law, now puts everyone male and female available for the draft, so if a war does break out and we start up the draft again, everyone 18 year female, the HS cheerleaders, and drama queens will be sent to boot camp and to war along with every 18 year old boy. Next is the phsylogical aspect, what if the emeny sets up afirebase/position next to a school, or hospital, and you have orders to take that position out.... could you/they

I am for it, let them all serve as they have whined about for years. And by the way, they no longer much easier PT tests as well. I want to see them run 3 miles in 18 mins, 20 dead hang pull-ups, and do 80 crunches in 20 minutes. You want it you got it, no longer a double set of standards...

For all of you out there who think women wanting to go fight is not a thing, take a moment and listen to me.
I recently retired from the Army and let me tell you, some of the female NCO's and officers I've personally worked with, and for can keep up and exceed the males in terms of athletic ability, intelligence, marksmanship and by-god zeal for the team. There are some very dedicated and professional leaders in our forces that would be an enormous asset in the field. Not only are they ready to go, they WANT to go. It's not about proving anything, it's about being able to use the skills you have been taught and the ability to remain a part of a team, a unit and ultimately a family. This should have been done long ago. If any of you think women can't hold their own when the bullets start flying, you don't understand the modern military. Women do not have a "place" to be. They are soldiers. About time we all accepted it.

There has not been a draft since Vietnam. What draft are you referring to? It's an all-volunteer force.

January 23, 2013 at 5:33 pm |

Engy

You are required by law to sign up for the selective service. The selective service is the way that a draft can be easily resumed. Its the same thing, just a little more complex

January 23, 2013 at 5:41 pm |

Rob

We'll see what changes will be made to the laws when they come. A modification of Selective Service wouldn't surprise me at this point. I highly doubt there will ever be a demand for a draft again anytime soon, though.

Correct, I was not an infantryman. But you know as we'll as I that we were all prepared to be. Just like a Marine is a Rifleman first, Army has to do Infantry whenever anyone needs it. Doesn't matter. Soldiers are soldiers. If the male-only units don't like the inclusion of women into the clubhouse, too bad. Suck it up and drive on. Complete the mission.

January 23, 2013 at 5:37 pm |

Al

And being in the Army I'm sure you realize that physical fitness among infantrymen is far better than in other units.

You realize that members of the Armed Forces work out and train their bodies about as much as, if not more than some professional athletes? I'm sure a standard will be set. This has been a long time coming. DoD has some data from pilot units from this program already.

January 23, 2013 at 5:50 pm |

gildersleeve1730

Interesting that we are hearing the same arguments raised when woman became cops, firemen, fighter pilots and every other skill or physical hurdle men have tried to keep them from doing. As a long time Specail Forces operator, there have been woman recruited for spec ops missions that were as capable and as deadly as any man. They are not forcing woman into these occupation specailties-they will all be volutneers, with the same physical challanges any man must face-these are not drama queen princises-these are strong cabable woman. I can garuntee in 5 years this will not even be an issue, just like cops, firemen and fighter pilots

So women are exempt from the draft AND they can fight in open combat only if they want to.... Wow. Just wow. I'm all for equality, but this isn't the case. As an adult male, I can be drafted into the military at any time and cannot refuse. But now women can serve in combat only if they want to? If women can serve in combat, then they should be able to be drafted. The military can screen those who are unfit for combat, so those who aren't able to wont have to. Full equality is what is needed, not just where you want it.

All you've shown me with that post was that you are unaware of the laws which govern you and that you will resort to Ad hominem. Thank you for educating me.

January 23, 2013 at 5:36 pm |

thorgold

Unable to get federal funding for college because, you know, jailtime gets in the way of that.

January 23, 2013 at 5:50 pm |

Matt

You should thank us all for educating you! That is, unless you signed the selective service paperwork out of a moral obligation to obey law. There is no legal obligtion (at least, no one has been prosecuted in the last 30 years.) That's why to receieve any federal student loans, federal jobs, naturalization, etc. it is leveraged with the requirement to be registered with selective service. That's also why they can only estimate the sign up rate to be at 92%, it's practically untraceable. So please don't cry like someone "made" you do it. Either you did it because you chose to, or because you needed something.

January 23, 2013 at 6:16 pm |

Ann

The U.S. ended conscription. You won't be drafted. Congress will need to pass legislation to open the draft back up.

The selective service is essentially a contingency that by law requires young men to register. That way a draft can be resumed at any time if required. So its essentially the same thing, just more politically muddled.

January 23, 2013 at 5:39 pm |

cpc65

I have to agree with Engy on this one as he makes a good point. I am 100% all for fair and equal treatment, provided that it is actually fair and EQUAL. When some of the women where I work don't want to do something, like empty their scrap cardboard bin (it's just empty cardboard boxes) they'll use the "I can't do that because I'm a women" excuse. But if you were to tell them "You can't do this because you're a women" they would flip out, and rightfully so. You can't have it both ways. I have no problems with them in combat, but earn that right to fight, like men, by being eligible for the draft. Fair is fair.

LETS FACE IT PEOPLE......YES WOMEN HAVE BEEN IN COMBAT.....ONE FEMALE SOLDIER GOT A SILVER STAR IN IRAQ FOR KILLING INSURGENTS LAYING DOWN COVER FIRE FOR A CONVOY.....SO THEY HAVE BEEN IN COMBAT FOR A WHILE.....QUIT B#@$%ING AND ACCEPT IT.....IT IS NOW OFFICAL

A) Turn off you Caps Lock key, please. I'll wait.
B) If you're talking about Jessica Lynch, the whole thing was a publicity sham. She was badly wounded, her gun was jammed and she lost consciousness shortly after a blast from an RPG. She came forwarded and testified before Congress that the military made the rest up. That is not to detract from her whole ordeal and I'm glad she was promptly rescued and made a full recovery.

and what are you doing to make the country better in your eyes? Sitting around complaining behind a computer screen. I bet if the news was "the sky turned green today" you would say it's Obama's fault. The only people that make this country suck are people like you that complain about non issues.

It's not communism. It is just the image of American men being O.K. with or hiding behind women on the battlefield – no real man would do it but not many of those around anymore.

January 23, 2013 at 5:53 pm |

Mart

Well its simple realy during world war 2 women served in lots of combat roles in the Russian Red Army and were equal to their male counterparts. So there you go commrade.

January 23, 2013 at 5:56 pm |

Quigley

I'm getting very nauseated at all these ignorant comments here about these nihilistic, blood thirsty broads on this web Page and all the right-wing bla-bla-bla about them wanting to "serve the country" and "fight terrorism". There is nothing glorious about killing people who don't deserve to die. It's this kind of ignorance that will bring this country down!

Great. Finally women in the military will indeed have equal work for equal pay. Just hope they can carry their own weight and understand they will be raped, tortured and mutilated before killed if they are captured by terrorists and most third world military. That is the reality of being in combat – which the politically correct forget to mention.

Maybe you missed the part about them ALREADY being in combat. And for your information...male or female, none do well being tortured. Rape? Considering what is already going on in our military academies, they are already at risk. Ed, you are probably old school because if you were in Iraq or Afghanistan in the last couple years you probably would have fought alongside women who were as brave as the rest of us.....

They are indeed already in combat in specific situations with little chance of being captured or killed. We will see how well this sells when the taliban parade captured women soliders in front of cameras and execute them and mutilate their bodies. Then the reality sets in of this 'politically correct" policy. No real man would be happy about it – of course there are few of those left in this country.

Posts on this thread keep mentioning rape. Do you think women don't think about that threat DAILY? Do you think we don't walk to our cars with our keys through our fingers? You talk about barbaric enemies of the US as though us ladies would be safe if only we stayed home and made your sandwiches, and at the SAME TIME you talk casually about raping female fellow soldier in the field. The world isn't safe. It probably never will be. But women deserve to live in it in whichever manner they see fit. And for the record, I do mean providing they pass the SAME fitness standards. And yes, I do believe us women should be required to register for selective service. Lastly, you realize that if women are eligible for the draft, and that day ever comes, that does not mean that ineligible women will be serving in combat. The physical requirements will still apply.

How dare you stand up for yourself and demand to not be treated as a 2nd class citizen. When all of the able bodied men left for WW2 women clearly demonstrated just how unfit they were unfit to do a "man's" work.

Yeah, but you are far likelier to get "raped" in a combat zone where the enemy is there to capture or kill you, and of course will rape you if they capture you versus walking to your car. I mean if you don't have a problem with it. I don't. I guess a man could get raped too but ...somehow i think it's going to happen alot more to a female POW than a guy.

My guess is you're far more likely to get raped while on base than you would in a combat situation.

January 23, 2013 at 5:41 pm |

Ed

Nice speech. Only means anything if YOU sign up and YOU face the reality of what happens if YOU are captured. The i will listen to you roar.

January 23, 2013 at 5:43 pm |

Franky

So, you think you are more likely to get raped in a base than as POW in an enemy camp? ARe you listening to yourself. While I see your argument, but a base you have some sort of potential refuge, and you are expressly there to likely be tortured as a POW, there is no uch illusion. The argument you make is simply silly to me. Like I said if the women who sign understand the consequences if captured then, you like it , I love it. I don't have any kids, but fxi.k no would I ever encourage my daughter to be in that position, I'm sorry. Call me old fashioned but in some regards men and women are not equal , and I'm ok with that. I have no problem with differences.

Cindy, in theory, right... In actual reality..... Not really......... First, women are not built for combat, it's nothing personal, just what nature intended. Second, what happens when you get knocked up in ground zero, have to use the bathroom?. Third, the Taliban are probably going to see that rare combat woman, target her and put unneeded attention on the rest of the unit.. I for one would not want to be on a unit with a woman, talk about unwanted attention.....

Taking the "chance" of being raped "everytime you leave your house is one thing. To be raped, tortured and then killed as a "prisoner of war" is another thing. I have no problem if this is what a women wants as their "destiny" – just don't make a big deal out of it when it happens and question why it happened. The truth is women in combat are better dead then taken as prisioners by terrorist and most third world militaries. The media and military should tell the truth about this nice sounding politically correct policy.

it seems to me that most of these comments are either intellectually or emotionally stunted. I am completely dumbfounded that anyone takes seriously commets about women nagging and pms-ing. The truth of the situation is that it isn't about the "anything you can do I can do better" debate, it's about who is qualified. Most of these comments discount the knowledge that women have already served and died for our country. It also assumes that women will be raped by opposing forces when women in the military are far more likely to be raped by their fellow soldier. It is upsetting and annoying that most of you choose to post with no actual bearing for what the truth of this situation is. I see an abundance of posters opening their mouths and removing all doubt.

WOW, well it is merely another incremental step towards total de-humanizing and destruction of the American society by the "Establishment" . No other cultures send their women to battle. For many reasons obvious and not. I pray that no woman soldier will be willing to entertain the idea of this. panetta needs to be tried for treason as it is, and this is just another insult to ALL AMERICANS.

You truly do not believe that do you? Regardless of their profiency as a marksman nor their purported higher level of respect for the weapon makes this a good idea. No cultures historically have not let their women fight. The reasons are numerous and I thought obvious too.

How about instead of assuming that women are or aren't ALL fit for combat duty, we just take gender out of the question and ask whether or not the human is cap[able. If a chick is too weak (or whatever your issue you think there will be) then let them get weeded out with all the males that get rejected because they aren't physically fit.

Why should women be weeded out? If they can hold a rifle and a few rounds of ammo they're strong enough to charge enemy machine guns. An American woman makes the same size target as an American man. Their flesh is just as good at stopping bullets as men.

Unfortunately you and your forward sighted thinking are not the US Military. The standards will not be equal. The DOD will always differentiate between a woman and a man. That is why a woman of my same age group can run her 2-mile run 2 minutes slower than me, but score higher. I MIGHT consider agreeing with integration if equal standards were guaranteed ... but it won't happen and we are fu@ked.

I fell down and broke bones at an elementary school campus as a grown man (6'2, 190lb... and no man worked on campus. The women lacked the body strength to even get me up off the ground so an ambulance had to be called. So how are these chicks going to carry wounded men on the battlefield whe hey can't even carry the combat packs men have to wear in battle?

Well Scott... I'm assuming they were teachers, and therefore had no physical requirements. Also they probably just didn't want to touch you. Aso... you fell? And broke bones? Weak sauce Scott. Weak sauce.

I see that you think that women in the military are in the same shape as women who work at an elemantry school. Interesting theory and I *can't* see a single problem with it. Everyone knows that nobody in the military works out!

So Scott: Were those women at the elementary school trained soldiers? Were they in peak physical condition and taught how to lift an individual that is larger than them? Doubtful that a man not trained to do so could lift you either. You gents need to get over this. If the women can't take care of themselves in combat, they will die. Period. Most of them know this, and they still volunteered. Try and give 'em a little credit?

As a woman - I agree with you. I am all for equality, but there are certain 'jobs' women are just not 'designed' for... I can't imagine being on front line PMS-ing or being on my period... No joke.
I was all 'high and mighty' before, and could have argued this in the opposite way, but I have girlfriend who was in Iraq and in reserves, and she is though – even she says, there are things women cannot and should not be doing.

Since they are allowing it, I expect females to not have higher female requirements. I expect them to have THE EXACT SAME requirements as a male. Front line combat is physically demanding. The weights and muscular endurances don't change because you're a woman. So why drop their standards?

Apparently, the Israeli army had to confront this issue when they found that for integrated squads, the casualty rate for men was unusually high. The men were throwing themselves into danger to protect their female comrades, entirely for chivalry's sake.

Good one, Cindy! I honestly don't think that we will have massive amounts of male soldiers throwing themselves in harm's way for the females. Tough to get a guy to even pick up after himself and he's gonna take a bullet? LOL. Funny stuff.

I'm tired of people saying that I'm a bigot because i don't want females in line units. I have no problem with women doing 99.9% of the occupations in the world ... being my foxhole mate isn't one of them. Tell you what ... I’ll make a deal with you Leon ... leave my combat arms alone and females can have the sole rights to being pilots. I have no problem with that ... matter of fact, most stats show that women make better pilots (combat or otherwise) than dudes. No problem talking to a female fly-girl bringing in fire support ... as long as she's not the one responsible for keeping up with my M240B gunner with his ammo.

So how are they planning to deal with the first cases of rape, torture and/or murder of a woman in Afghanistan? They also will need to find women that are capable of carrying a large male with gear who is wounded and has the physical power and stamina of a combat trained male. I'm all for women's rights and women in the military, but I do not support this. This will be life and death and is no place for this kind of experiment.

any before anyone brings up israel and russia in WW2 again, please understand that it was done out of necessity. they need the bodies, plain and simple. we can afford to be more selective, and therefore should make the effort that only the very best make it.

If my lover got hit, I would try to save her too! Case in point, if the chick that I am porking got shot, I would try to rescue her over my buds.

January 23, 2013 at 5:28 pm |

DeepeThought

We could not win the Vietnam war due to public resisence in the USA. Just imagine the resistence to combat when it is learned that captured women soldiers are raped daily. Unfortunately, war is necessary sometimes.

Rape in the military is pretty commonplace and in most instances swept under the rug. What makes you think our military cares if the enemy does this when we turn a blind eye when fellow soldiers do it?

He's talking about our POWs getting raped daily by the enemy... which compares in no way to an general military atmosphere that frankly women shouldn't be a part of and obviously are capable of and every now and then something bad happes.

January 23, 2013 at 5:17 pm |

Stopsign

Pat – are you in the military or were you ever in the military?

January 23, 2013 at 5:40 pm |

JFLYS

I'm a man and protecting women is not my first nature. But seriously, you can't expect the average female to pass the physical requirements of infantry school so what exactly does the military mean when they say they're allowing women into combat. Flying a jet and leading a squad with a ruck sack and SAW are two different things. Most of my male buddies couldn't pass infantry standards.

CIB holder myself. Couldn't agree more. I'm OK with it. The ones that do make it will be badass and will be able to take care of themselves. Plus, Armor and Artillery still qualify as combat arms and that'll open up. I've got no problem with a woman TC on a 155. A woman at my house rains down fire all the time, whay not let women do it in the Army?

Cedar Rapids, it is obvious that you have never been in the military. Do you even know what combat arms means? I too have no problem with women in armor, artillery...but, the infantry is a different story because it is a physical job....and a damn dirty job.

January 23, 2013 at 5:35 pm |

Pg

So now that they are allowing women to participate in frontline combat, its strictly the choice of the women.
How lomg will it be till they sue the us military for allowing them to participate, once lives start to fall

This is stupid. I like how its always some 3rd party interest group or some knucklehead that never set foot in combat that comes up with these ideas. Now I cant speak for other combat arms other than the infantry, thats what I did for 5 years and 2 combat tours. People have to understand that GI Jane does not exist! I for one feel for my brothers who will have to deal with this experiment that just sets the military up for failure. It will cost lives. If you can find a woman that can carry the heaviest man in full gear after a 12k force march in 110 degree heat after bounding through the hills in a react to fire drill then sure but good luck finding one of those. Then you get to hygiene and living with males. Are they gonna say "no we cant set up an outpost here" cause their are not enough facilities to accommodate women? They dont allow Woman to live in the same barracks as men in garrison but its ok in a combat situation? There seems to be a lot of feel good stuff going on here that sounds all good and equal and woman's rights and bla bla bla. I would never join the military at this point, glad I already served.

'If you can find a woman that can carry the heaviest man in full gear after a 12k force march in 110 degree heat after bounding through the hills in a react to fire drill then sure but good luck finding one of those.'

I bet she CAN do worse when she is RAGGING it on her time of the Month.... Nothing but bad will come from this, but hey women want Equal Rights, so they TOO should be allowed to Serve our Country with Full Support....

Now we need to change things just a little bit more. REQUIRE ALL FEMALES to have the same responsibilities under law that men have. Require females to register with selective service, participate in any future draft, and serve on the front lines without any female privilege to avoid equal responsibility. When that happens, the country will be less misandrist and females will be closer to equality. Until then, I don't care at all about the females whining about supposed discrimination.

Wait until the first female soldier gets captured or separated from her unit. Then we won't be hearing about Lance Armstrong and Justin Beiber on the news for awhile. And when a team of special forces risks their lives to bring her back from hell, you'll be able to watch the movie on Lifetime. She'll be famous and get a book deal...

Having served during Vietnam a long time ago, I want a male next to me in combat. Not a female and worse, not some 45 year old pudgy male who BSs at the VFW hall. You need order-obeying males at their physically strongest point and not yet mentally afraid. On second thought, if the chips were down and picturing a couple of guys at the hall, I'll take an an able and stong female first.

This is the first thing I questioned. As someone else pointed out, Women are not too eager to join the service at this point in time. If this measure requires women to register with the selective service– which it should in total fairness–, it would be interesting to see how women to react if the draft was reinstated. Although in all probability, women would be exempt if armed forces felt it jeopardized the moral of the troops.

They are performing "inspection arms". If you look at the other two, not only is the ejection port cover open, but the bolt is to the rear. The one in the middle has the ejection port cover closed NOT because she is keeping it clean, but because she is NOT STRONG ENOUGH to pull the charing handle to the rear.....yet somehow is strong enough for combat.

OMG!!! Just look at the photo of the female Marines posted with the article if you think this is a good idea!! An entire 100 woman platoon of recruits and my Ruck Sack is heavier than all of them ... and for you non-military types who think I'm being derogatory toward women ... by Ruck Sack I am referring to the pack that I have to live out of for days to weeks at a time...

Its called muscle mass and boty fat percentage you-hoo! That Korean Marine is 12% body fat at 140lbs ... I really doubt any of those recruits are under 20% ... not their fault ... its just biology.

January 23, 2013 at 5:11 pm |

JR

Well, when 1 million Asians come running over the moutains I don't think anyone can do much about it. Especially when the politicians tie your hands behind your back. Should of let McArthur have his way

OPEN THEM? How about making it the same requirement as they do on men? Further, start requiring women to Register for Selective Service. Most men are not given the choice in the military of whether they will serve combat duty, so it should be the same on the women. Of course than the women will oppose it, just as they oppose being required to register for the Draft.

Great now we can have young women chanting kill babies as their marine battle cry....or singing songs about mowing down kids at schools in the middle east as they taught at the core ......sad enough some of my buddies thought it was cool to shoot civilians over there in Iraq...but im sure the news will start leaking that all out real soon ...the truth always comes out.

I do not care who is serving as long as the standards are not reduced or removed. Unfortunately, some political types view any standards as an impediment to their ideals. The military is a political machine,and often adjust its policies to fit the current political fad. When Airborne School was opened to women, certain obstacles were reduced or removed. In official Army doctrine Paratroopers became parachutist... There are already two physical standards for women and men. It is academic dishonesty to claim both equal then adjust the standards for one group. Again, if they(anyone) are capable let them serve. If not keep them out. Just dont lower the standards...

The purpose behind this is to immedately increase the number of combat ready soldiers. The question you should all be asking yourself is, why the sudden need for more combat ready solders now that we just ended 2 wars? Be prepared to defend yourselfs against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

As a female officer with two combat deployments, over 60 combat patrols, and a commander I don't agree that Obama is pandering to me.

January 25, 2013 at 8:54 am |

DeepeThought

If it is discrimination forbidding women in combat then it is also discrimination (against men) not having all women register for the draft and having separate sports clubs for men and women in collleges, pros, high schools, etc.

Well the French have the foreign legion and anyone who serves for 6 years (I believe) becomes a citizen. We should have an American Foreign Legion for people wanting citizenship. Serve for 6 years and you and your spouse and children become citizens. Of course they would have to have background checks and we would have to only use them over seas until they fullfilled their commitment. I'd rather a Mexican immigrant fought for his citizenship rather then just sneak in over the boarder. Also no pay for them besides food and housing. We pay them with citizenship. This would solve a lot of our military financial problems and immigration problems as well.

Most of the things being said here about women not being fit for combat were said about African Americans. Ask the WWII bomber pilots who were amazed that black P-51 pilots didn't run when the Messerschmidts showed up.

There are two physical standards for women and men. It is academic dishonesty to claim both equal then adjust the standards for one group. Again, if they(anyone) are capable let them serve. If not keep them out. Just dont lower the standards...

Yeah, Obama had a lot to do with it–he was eight years old, I believe. It was the war we lost, not the battles. We killed a lot more of them than they did us. We still lost the war. And if anyone says it was a political defeat but a military victory, by the time the American people (and soldiers) got sick of that war, we'd had years of saying victory is just around the corner. Congressmen aren't the only people full of B.S.–plenty of generals are too.

January 23, 2013 at 5:05 pm |

Robert

@Commonsense123 – Seriously? Obama and his ilk helped the US lose in Vietnam? Obama still had cartoon characters on his drawers during Vietnam. Get your head out of Rush's rump before you suffocate.

January 23, 2013 at 5:09 pm |

Marlon 45

Nonsense123, the President was a Boy during The Vietnam War so what did he do to be dragged into that, I'm sure your hatred for him is Racially based nonsense, But Give it a Rest

January 23, 2013 at 5:43 pm |

john-117

They didn't kick the butts of the US army. They US had no real objective and because of civil unrest at home, the military was withdrawn. We could have wiped the Communists from the face of the planet if that had been out plan.

I bet if we had accomplished our objective of preventing the spread of communism to the democratic nation of south vietnam, we would have a military presence there somewhat similar to the presence we have in S. korea. Maybe those bases would have been downsized in recent years because Vietnam has never been much of a threat. But we definitely would not have left S. Vietnam the way that we did if we had held our own against the N. Vietnamese. Don't want to blame the grunts? Ok. Blame the generals and politicians. They are men too, aren't they?

January 23, 2013 at 5:08 pm |

ResponderOne

The kill ratio in that conflct was approximately 19:1, meaning 19 North Vietnamese were killed for each US/allied casualty. If you're suggesting that's "kicking ass" we'd better prepare for losing a lot of wars.

That's a great stat. It proves my point. Ass-kicking the other guy 19 to 1 did not help us win that war. Having big strong american men did not help us either. This saps the strength of the argument that only men can win in combat.

January 23, 2013 at 5:10 pm |

Old Guy

When Saigon was overrun the only US troops in country were at the Embassy...

unfortunately most will not understand this... The military is about fighting and winning Americas wars not about providing everybody and equal rights. We don't allow this old, overweight and in many cases the disabled to serve.

Most of these posts are from people not in the military and who have no desire to serve in the military and all they see is an equality issue. It is not an issue of desire or intellect just physical ability and culture.
Most men could not make it through combat arms units. We create these units to serve a purpose and a culture of disciplined crude alpha male aggressiveness that most would feel uncomfortable being around.

For us in the military we know what this means, lower standards...It also means someone will have to carry their weight.. we all have seen it happen over and over again when females are put into these units

Having served in the military, I'm fine with this decision if the physical standards for women in combat roles are the SAME as the men. If they can pass the test without gender specific physical readiness standards then they should be able to do the job the same as the men. Go ahead ladies. Try and do 70+ push ups in 2 minutes...and when you are done go ahead and sign up for selective service (draft).

As a male Marine Infantry officer, what's the big deal? What's not being said is that there is ONE, count it ONE standard at Marine Infantry Officer Course for both males and females. If both can pass the physical aspect and leadership aspect according to seasoned infantry instructors, who's to say that women should not be in the fight. They are sometimes more approachable than their male counterparts by the locals in the Middle East. Yeah, there will be your GI Jane's who do it for feminist reasons, but most of them will be screened out and dropped through the training process.

I just returned from a combat tour in Afghanistan and had females directly embedded with my team. Sure some were too "prissy" for the job but the ones that wanted to be there and were motivated did performed better under fire than some of my Joes.

Post a comment

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

Search Security Clearance

Share this blog

About this blog

CNN's Security Clearance examines national and global security, terrorism and intelligence, as well as the economic, military, political and diplomatic effects of it around the globe, with contributions from CNN's national security team in Washington and CNN journalists around the world.